Hold ur horses. 10 is an excellent band right at the moment with openings, hence a good idea starting to stimulate other hams to set up experiments with the (edit: ironically:) completely new and bright ideas that Charles Lester presented us in this topic and defended succesfully.

Ken,Hold ur horses. 10 is an excellent band right at the moment with openings, hence a good idea starting to stimulate other hams to set up experiments with the completely new and bright ideas that Charles Lester presented us in this topic and defended succesfully.Wim PAoWV

Point taken, I agree.But a true and complete evaluation wouldinclude multiple bands, which have differentpropagation methods, signal to noise ratios, crowded bands, etc.

On a quiet, uncrowded band with low noise,strong signals, it would probably work. But how fast couldyou get the text through,how many dropouts/errors would you have, even under ideal conditions?

I am not saying throw the concept in the rubbish.I am saying I would like to see it tested in a rigorousscientific fashion before it is proclaimed "the future of CW".

Quote

the completely new and bright ideas that Charles Lester presented us

With all respect, very, very few ideas are "completely new".

An idea is easy to defend, like a hypothesis.Hypotheses are based on suppositions.Theories are based on facts and reproducible data/phenomena.I'd just like to see some facts and data, that's all.

Thanks for your commit, the tech for voice/cw is not here yet,in the future we hams will gain the ability to do voice/cw.

Charles, why do you NOW say "it is not here yet"?Why the change in tune?You never mentioned that in any of yourother posts on the topic. They were "We can do this now!".

Is it because as a Technician Class Op your only HF phoneprivileges are on 10m, so that is the onlyband YOU could personally test this on?

Ken AD6KA

Well now, if you would like to look at my first post, you will find, That I said in the future we will have Voice/CW. I do hope it can be accomplished with analog transceivers or all in one SDR , or maybe just a add on to your radio?

But it is certainly possible that a couple of storks could change things....

73 de Jim, N2EY

Right, but added with the fact that he wrote in a link referenced in this thread, that he was in a combat situation in 1976 as commander of a unit with wounded soldiers, I do not expect the age of a young man in the period of family creating. Sri fr my english.

So I want to use this place to thank N5RWJ, for the presentation of his bright ideas about the future of CW. We all have to start thinking about the possibilities he sketched.

Wim PAoWV

Yes after FANK B 43 closed in Vietnam. I work as a operator from 75 to Jun of 1980 in Africa . The Russians and Red Chinese where trying to take control of all the supertanker ports ,to stop them we tried to control the out come of the war in Rhodesia. President. J Carter, the British and and some Rhodesian/Zimbabwe traitors hoping for high British decorations . Gave an free democratic elected Country over to red Chinese Control in a fake election in 1980. Hoping they would stop the Russians! ***Just look who, I have Exposed***Sorry Jim.

Thanks for your commit, the tech for voice/cw is not here yet,in the future we hams will gain the ability to do voice/cw.

Charles, why do you NOW say "it is not here yet"?Why the change in tune?You never mentioned that in any of yourother posts on the topic. They were "We can do this now!".

Is it because as a Technician Class Op your only HF phoneprivileges are on 10m, so that is the onlyband YOU could personally test this on?

Ken AD6KA

You know, I didn't think of that, but your right, technicians would seem to gain from this. But no they can't , they must stay in their FCC allocation, but they could use Voice/CW on home ground. also I promise to upgrade to low band voice soon.

Let be there this new voice/cw mode although it has just little or even nothing to do with the beauty and knowledge of CW. I propose voice/cw activity should be outside from CW frequencies. Otherwise we will have together motor boats and sailing boats activity.

Thank you for making me laugh on this rainy morning.I was starting to think that ham radio had lost its share of odd personalities and wacky ideas, but it appears we still have our quota.

Do you guys who champion the voice to cw to voice path even do morse?Dust off the key/bug/paddle, join the big boys, and have a great time.

Ten metres is hot lately, as are 12 and 15, lots of morse, mostly hand keys and bugs from the sending styles seen.I use a hand key, paddle or PC keyboard with a serial interface as the mood grabs me.Its all fun.

I could even fire up my Dragon 11 and use it to send morse and parse the poorly decoded morse from cwdecoder or MRP40 etc to readplease 2000 and have it speak it out.

But really, the result would be rubbish, clumsy and unwieldy making it a poor experience.

Or I could just read morse in my head, and enjoy the experience.

I used to use Dragon 11 with my digimode operation, and it worked, sort of, but in the end the utility was really not worth the extra clumsiness.

This thread seems to assume the technology in the future will meet some pressing need to send voice CW, but the technology is here right now, off the shelf (on my computer even), to do this - in the main people are just not interested.

Most of my morse operating is with stations sitting in the noise, sending "non standard" spacing and we all have great fun.I sometimes put on morse decoding programs to see how they cope with decoding, forget it, unless you want to laugh.

Why is traditional morse still popular when so many other options are available to communicate?I don't know, but for me, it is the satisfaction of achievement I gain from training my brain to turn intermittent bursts of tones into a conversation, much to the bemusement of onlookers.

It's sort of like being in an ancient secret society with a special language, and after all that's what morse is - a language.And I like languages, which is why I taught myself German, Spanish and Japanese, not because I need to, but because it is human to explore.

If I encode voice with CW doesn't the FCC require it to be used in the phone bands? Other forms of digitally encoded voice must be used in the phone bands.

[/quote ] The FCC will let you use CW in the phone bands, but we have band agreements that prevents its. Now think of Voice/CW or code ,as a speech interphase, you speak ,its then encoded into code and then TX. To the other stations, where its decoded back into speech or type. This Tech is not here yet, but could be soon. At this time its need for the handicap, and for some no code Hams. Out of the 700,000 Hams in the US, its reported that half of them are technicians that work VHF bands or have lost interest in Ham radio. If this trend is not stopped, look for your future radio, to cost as much as a new car?

I don't think the FCC cares how you generate morse as long as it enters the RF spectrum as an A1 compliant signal and it is not encrypted.Whether you generate it by hand key, bug, paddle, PC keyboard, Voice recognition, foot pedal or pianola roll.

I don't know about first generation morse sending.If you are familiar with the Dragon v11 voice to text program you would see it is excellent (after some simple training) at converting voice to text. It is entirely capable of achieving very good results, but it becomes tiresome to use voice recognition and the other methods are so much better and simpler.For example, voice recognition is good enough to run a computer browser and surf the web ( I have used it ), but in the end one gets tired of speaking and goes back to the mouse.The technology to go from voice to morse is here now, entirely practical, but suffers from the same problem of lack of benefit.I have spoken to hams using Dragon V11 with PSK31 and it works fine, but they are handicapped and this is their path to using digimodes, not a shortcut, but an enabling technology.

The situation is entirely different with decoding morse.To decode morse which is machine generated, strong signals without qrm is relatively easy and problem free, but as soon as you get signals in the noise and particularly with human generated morse the situation changes completely.I have tried about nine different programs and really put them through their paces, and so far the results are mediocre.This could certainly do with further research and may yield future results.

But, what is the point of doing this?Morse is not required for ham licensing, and even if it was, voice morse would not be eligible for examination in any case.Morse can be generated by PC, electronic key with a paddle, bug or voice to text, but how voice to morse would increase the number of hams is beyond me.If you are suggesting that there are thousands of prospective hams who are avoiding taking up the hobby because voice morse is not used much, seems a little ludicrous.As to the ham radio hobby declining, have you read the recent article about ham radio increasing its numbers greatly lately?

Frankly, I don't see what the point of this conversation is, since if you want voice to cw, it is already available - today - right now.If you want to decode morse by computer, it is available today as well, although the reliability is very variable.

But again, what is the point of this: Machine to machine modes are available in huge numbers in ham radio.Some examples are: PSK31/OLIVIA/MFSK/PACKET/........... and the list goes on almost to infinity, so the options for machine-RF-machine are already here, and large numbers of hams are using them today.Why would they be interested in doing the same using morse code as the intermediate mode when PSK31 is available to do just that?

The allure of morse code is that it is a human readable code, but, and this seems to be the problem you are trying to address - it takes effort on the part of the ham who wants to use CW.Yes, it takes effort, willpower, time and persistence.

Like becoming a master swordsman, you have to travel a road of difficulty which ends in excellence.Or you could just get a pistol and bypass all that hard work.

Copyright 2000-2018 eHam.net, LLC
eHam.net is a community web site for amateur (ham) radio operators around the world.
Contact the site with comments or questions.
WEBMASTER@EHAM.NETSite Privacy Statement